Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 27/05/2015 16:29, Clive Page wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote:

It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read.

I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and are
deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even above zero.


And, perhaps it just caters to their own staff...

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Sign language vs subtitles
 

In message , David
Kennedy writes
On 27/05/2015 16:29, Clive Page wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote:

It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read.

I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and are
deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even above zero.


It's not just BBC4 though [is it?] it pops up from time to time on BBC2
as well IIRC


I've also seen it on late-night films on ITV channels. I find it very
distracting at first, though eventually I manage to mostly filter it
out.
--
I'm not paid to implement the recognition of irony.
(Taken, with the author's permission, from a LiveJournal post)

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Wed, 27 May 2015 18:18:30 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:58:37 +0100

I actually find the hand-signs less distracting that the facial gurning
which accompanies some of them and which is presumably a crucial add-on to
the hand signals.

I came across an early morning signed programme, and the gurning was
so funny I had to watch. Can't remember what the programme was about
though.
--
Dave W

Sign language vs subtitles
 

"Martin" wrote in message
...
I've always wondered how much information can be conveyed by signing
compared with by subtitling, assuming that a) the viewer can read, and b)
that the subtitles are an accurate transcription of what was said.

If only they were.

In my experience, subtitles of pre-recorded programmes on all channels seem
to be pretty good. There's the occasional howler which could be due to the
subtitler without specialised knowledge of the subject mishearing a word,
especially if the speaker has a strong regional accent. For example in last
week's documentary about the Quintinshill train crash, Neil Oliver (who has
a south-west Scottish accent) referred to a "lever collar" (a safety device
used in a signal box) and on the first occasion this appeared in the
subtitles as "lever caller".

But the quality of subtitles on live programmes which have to be subtitled
in real time is much worse with all sorts of unintelligible gibberish.


However my original question (which is not directly related to subtitling)
still stands: if someone is speaking at a normal rate and a signer is
interpreting in sign language, how much of the subtlety of the speaker's
wording is preserved, given that some words have to be spelled out
letter-by-letter instead of having a symbol of their own, which slows things
down. Would deaf people tend to get a more faithful rendition of the
speaker's words if it was *accurately, without howlers* transcribed to
subtitles than if it was rendered in sign language? I've always wondered,
because I understand that some deaf people prefer one method and some prefer
the other.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 28/05/2015 08:43, NY wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
...
I've always wondered how much information can be conveyed by signing
compared with by subtitling, assuming that a) the viewer can read, and b)
that the subtitles are an accurate transcription of what was said.

If only they were.

In my experience, subtitles of pre-recorded programmes on all channels seem to
be pretty good. There's the occasional howler which could be due to the
subtitler without specialised knowledge of the subject mishearing a word,
especially if the speaker has a strong regional accent. For example in last
week's documentary about the Quintinshill train crash, Neil Oliver (who has a
south-west Scottish accent) referred to a "lever collar" (a safety device used
in a signal box) and on the first occasion this appeared in the subtitles as
"lever caller".

But the quality of subtitles on live programmes which have to be subtitled in
real time is much worse with all sorts of unintelligible gibberish.


most of that seems to be the voice recognition software.


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 11:12:10 UTC+1, Clive Page wrote:
So does anyone know why broadcasters still
persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the
subtitles?

There are 125,000 deaf adults in the UK who use BSL plus an estimated 20,000 children. In 2011, 15,000 people, living in England and Wales, reported themselves using BSL as their *main* language (wikipedia, my emphasis)

BSL is the first or preferred language of an estimated 70,000 Deaf people in the UK. (signature.org.uk)

Owain

Sign language vs subtitles
 

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 11:12:10 UTC+1, Clive Page wrote:
So does anyone know why broadcasters still
persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the
subtitles?

There are 125,000 deaf adults in the UK who use BSL plus an estimated
20,000 children. In 2011, 15,000 people, living in England and Wales,
reported themselves using BSL as their *main* language (wikipedia, my
emphasis)

BSL is the first or preferred language of an estimated 70,000 Deaf people
in the UK. (signature.org.uk)

But surely they need to know English in order to communicate in writing
(letters, emails, reading web pages etc).

I'm surprised that BSL is classed as a language in it own right rather than
being regarded as English "spoken" using signs rather than vocal sounds?

Is there a higher proportion of deaf people who can *only* communicate by
BSL (and not by written English) than the proportion of illiterate people in
the general population?

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 29/05/15 11:59, NY wrote:
I'm surprised that BSL is classed as a language in it own right rather
than being regarded as English "spoken" using signs rather than vocal
sounds?

Sign languages for the deaf have different grammars from the spoken and
written languages in the same country.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 29/05/2015 13:14, David Woolley wrote:
On 29/05/15 11:59, NY wrote:
I'm surprised that BSL is classed as a language in it own right rather
than being regarded as English "spoken" using signs rather than vocal
sounds?

Sign languages for the deaf have different grammars from the spoken and
written languages in the same country.

British sign language is not English turned into signs.

British Sign Language and American Sign Language quite different and
mutually unintelligible.
--
Phil Cook

Sign language vs subtitles
 

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/2015 13:14, David Woolley wrote:
On 29/05/15 11:59, NY wrote:
I'm surprised that BSL is classed as a language in it own right rather
than being regarded as English "spoken" using signs rather than vocal
sounds?

Sign languages for the deaf have different grammars from the spoken and
written languages in the same country.

British sign language is not English turned into signs.

Ah, I didn't know that, nor that BSL and English have different grammars
from written/spoken English.

The fact that they are a different grammar, maybe capable of being
simplified to allow the same speed of communication even though signing is
(presumably) slower that speaking, suggests that it may not be possible to
reconstruct from the signing the same words that are in the subtitles (and
are spoken in the dialogue/commentary) - they may not all be saying exactly
the same thing in different ways.

I wonder why British and American sign language have evolved to be so
different and not mutually comprehensible with just a few regional
differences as for spoken English around the world. Do other
English-speaking countries have their own sign languages or do they all use
either British or American sign language. What about other languages which
are spoken in different countries (eg French in France, Canada, African
countries etc) - do they all use the same sign language. Indeed is there
even a different sign language for non-English countries or do various
countries with different spoken/written languages (France, Germany, Italy,
Spain etc) have a common mutually understandable sign language. Forgive my
total ignorance on the subject - I've never thought of it until now because
I thought that ASL and BSL were effectively signed forms of English and were
reasonably similar to each other.